Not upheld: inadequate fraud prevention and scam protection complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Ms A complained that Revolut failed to protect her from an investment scam that resulted in losses exceeding £13,000. Revolut had declined some suspicious payments and provided scam warnings, but the ombudsman found it should have made better enquiries. However, the ombudsman determined that further enquiries would not have prevented the loss because Ms A had been deeply manipulated by the scammer, had made prior payments through another provider, and provided inaccurate responses to Revolut's questions. The ombudsman concluded that Ms A would likely have continued providing misleading information even if questioned further, and therefore Revolut's failings did not materially affect the outcome. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Revolut ought to have made better enquiries about certain payments and the warnings provided were proportionate to the risks, the ombudsman was not persuaded that further enquiries would have prevented the loss. Ms A had been deeply manipulated by the scammer and provided misleading answers to questions. The ombudsman concluded that even if questioned further, Ms A would likely have continued providing inaccurate information to avoid alerting Revolut, due to being under the scammer's influence. The ombudsman could only uphold the complaint if satisfied that Revolut's failings made a material difference to the outcome.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website